History's Only Asset with a 100% Win Rate After 4 Years of Holding

Author: Chen Xiaomeng

If we define the problem strictly:

Buying at any point in time and holding for a full 4 years results in a final nominal total return greater than 0.

Then the conclusion is very interesting:

Among mainstream, high-risk, freely tradable assets, no other asset can achieve a "historical rolling 4-year 100% profitable rate," except it.

But if we include low-risk fixed income assets, instruments like 4-year Treasury bonds, rolling short-term bonds, and term deposits can also do it. However, their "100%" is entirely a different matter.

I. S&P 500 Cannot Do It

Many people would instinctively think:

As long as you hold US stocks for 4 years, you'll make money, right?

Actually, that's completely wrong.

In the long-term data maintained by NYU Professor Damodaran, the total return of the S&P 500 includes dividends, covering the period from 1928 to 2025.

Here are a few very typical 4-year windows.

1929~1932

Annual returns were approximately:

• 1929: -8.3%

• 1930: -25.1%

• 1931: -43.8%

• 1932: -8.6%

Compounded over 4 years:

Approximately -64.8%.

In other words:

$1 million put in would be worth only about $350,000 after 4 years.

1999~2002

Even including the final surge of the dot-com bubble in 1999:

• 1999: +20.9%

• 2000: -9.0%

• 2001: -11.9%

• 2002: -22.0%

The total 4-year return is still approximately:

-24.4%.

2007~2010

Experiencing the financial crisis:

• 2007: +5.5%

• 2008: -36.6%

• 2009: +25.9%

• 2010: +14.8%

Even with the violent rebound in 2009 and 2010, the 4-year total is still:

Approximately -3.2%.

Therefore:

The long-term win rate of the S&P 500 is very high, but it is definitely not 100% over 4 years.

II. Nasdaq 100 Is Even Less Likely

Nasdaq's official data shows that during the dot-com bubble burst, the Nasdaq 100:

• 2000: -36.4%

• 2001: -30.8%

• 2002: -38.9%

• 2003: +48.5%

Even with the near 50% surge in the 4th year, the cumulative return for this entire 4-year cycle is still:

Approximately -60%.

Nasdaq's official data also notes that after the 2000 bubble peak, the index once declined cumulatively by about 83%.

So, the historical performance difference between BTC and tech stocks on this point is very clear:

Tech stocks can experience a deep trough that a full 4-year cycle cannot recover from.

Bitcoin, so far, has not.

III. Gold Cannot Do It Either

Gold is often considered the classic long-term store of value asset, but over 4 years, it can also lose a lot.

For example, 1981~1984, according to Damodaran's data:

• 1981: -32.6%

• 1982: +15.6%

• 1983: -16.8%

• 1984: -19.4%

Cumulative over 4 years:

Approximately -47.7%.

Even more dramatic, research from the World Gold Council itself shows:

Gold experienced a nearly 12-year bear market from November 1987 to August 1999, with prices cumulatively falling about 48%.

So, although gold possesses very strong long-term monetary properties:

4 years absolutely does not equal a safe time horizon.

IV. Real Estate Is Not It Either

If we look at US real estate overall, not a single luckily purchased property, there are also negative 4-year cycles.

In Damodaran's data:

The approximate annual returns for real estate from 2007 to 2010 were:

• 2007: -5.4%

• 2008: -12.0%

• 2009: -3.85%

• 2010: -4.12%

Cumulative approximately:

-23.3%.

And there's also a visual illusion with real estate:

Houses don't trade daily like BTC and stocks, so the price curve appears smooth.

In reality, if there were a public market quoting your house price every day, real estate volatility would be much greater than we typically perceive.

V. Long-Term Treasury Bonds Surprisingly Cannot Do It Either

This is actually the easiest to misunderstand.

Many people say:

Aren't US Treasuries risk-free assets?

The key is to distinguish:

Treasury bonds held to maturity and trading a long-duration bond.

For example, the total return of the 10-year US Treasury:

• 2021: -4.42%

• 2022: -17.83%

• 2023: +3.88%

• 2024: -1.64%

Cumulative over 4 years approximately:

-19.8%.

The reason is the aggressive interest rate hikes starting in 2022; old bonds with low coupons saw their market prices plummet.

Therefore:

TLT, 10-year Treasury indices, long-term bond funds are not "four-year guaranteed win assets."

VI. Corporate Bonds Also Cannot Do It

Baa corporate bonds during the same 2021~2024 period:

• +1.02%

• -15.23%

• +8.74%

• +1.74%

Still, after 4 years approximately:

-5.3%.

So credit bonds also cannot achieve it.

VII. So What Can Truly Achieve "100% Nominal Profit Over 4 Years"?

This brings us to another category of assets.

Category 1: Rolling US Short-Term Treasury Bills

The 3-month T-Bill is a very typical example.

It doesn't make money through asset price appreciation, but by:

Buying at a discount → Redeeming at face value upon maturity.

For example, you spend $99.5 to buy a T-Bill with a $100 face value, and at maturity, the US Treasury gives you $100.

TreasuryDirect describes the T-Bill mechanism similarly: purchase price is typically below face value, receive the full face value at maturity, the difference is interest.

Damodaran's US T-Bill annual data from 1928 onward has been basically positive nominal returns, so continuously rolling over 3-month T-Bills naturally results in positive returns for any complete historical 4-year interval.

But note:

This is called:

Not losing dollar amount.

It does not mean:

Not losing purchasing power.

For example, with inflation at 8% and T-Bill returns at 2%, your account balance increases, but your actual purchasing power declines.

VIII. 4-Year Term Deposit / CD

Suppose you find today:

A 4-year fixed-rate CD at 4%

And you:

• Do not redeem early;

• The bank does not fail beyond insurance coverage;

• The interest rate contract remains valid;

Then after 4 years:

The nominal dollar profit is essentially locked in on the day of purchase.

The US FDIC provides insurance for qualifying bank deposits and CDs, currently with a standard limit of:

$250,000 per depositor, per bank, per ownership category.

Therefore, the "100% win rate over 4 years" for such instruments essentially comes from:

Contract + credit protection.

Not from asset price appreciation.

IX. US Treasury Bonds Maturing Within 4 Years

This also qualifies.

For example, if you buy today:

A US Treasury bond maturing in 4 years with a yield-to-maturity of 4%

And hold it to maturity.

As long as the US government pays normally, you don't need to care at all about how the bond price fluctuates in the interim.

At maturity:

Principal + interest are paid as agreed.

Thus, the nominal return is basically locked in at purchase.

But if you buy a:

10-year Treasury bond, and must sell it in the 4th year

That's a different story.

So there's a very important distinction here:

A 4-year maturity bond ≠ Holding a long-term bond for 4 years.

The former can lock in returns.

The latter has duration risk.

X. The Only True Deity – Bitcoin

A Strategy report used BTC/USD daily data from July 2010 to August 2026 to statistically analyze rolling holding periods starting on every single day.

The result is:

Holding PeriodFinal Profitable ProportionWorst Total Return1 Year73.1%-83.6%2 Years84.0%-68.3%3 Years99.3%-34.7%4 Years100.0%+32.6%

That is to say, among the 4,419 rolling 4-year windows it analyzed, not a single one ended in a loss.

And historically, the worst 4-year period was:

April 16, 2021 → April 16, 2025

The total return was still:

+32.6%

Converted to an annualized rate approximately:

7.3% CAGR.

Two words – invincible~

XI. So What's Really Worth Comparing Is This Table

This leads to an interesting barbell phenomenon:

Assets that can achieve a 100% nominal win rate over 4 years are concentrated at two extremes.

One end is:

Extremely low-risk, contract-fulfillment type assets.

The other end is:

Assets like Bitcoin – high-growth, inherently short fiat currency, and still in the early stages of monetization.

And those traditional risk assets in the middle:

Stocks, gold, real estate, long-term bonds – none of them can do it.

XII. But the "100%" of BTC and the "100%" of Treasury Bonds Are Completely Different in Substance

This is the most crucial point.

T-Bill's 100%

Logic:

You know today exactly how much someone owes you in the future.

You primarily bear US sovereign credit risk.

BTC's 100%

Logic is completely different.

Bitcoin:

• Has no issuer;

• No one promises how much they will give you 4 years later;

• Has no principal repayment;

• Has no coupon payment;

• Has no cash flow.

Therefore, Bitcoin's 4-year 100% comes entirely from:

The historical market price itself ultimately rising.

And precisely because of this, it is exceptionally abnormal.

XIII. The Final Investment Perspective

Bitcoin is likely one of the most prominent assets among modern major risk assets to possess the historical record of "any 4-year holding period achieving a positive nominal return."

But what's truly remarkable about it is not just the three numbers "100%".

It has repeatedly experienced 70%~90% crashes, yet still hasn't produced a single complete 4-year cycle with a negative return.

This is much more powerful than simply saying "Bitcoin goes up in the long term."

It also conversely illustrates a problem:

Being able to hold on is far more important than constantly trading.

Especially strategies like selling calls, using leverage, trading in waves, and yield enhancement are essentially ways to alter this very rare long-term return distribution.